Circumcision

[jedusor]

I can't believe this is even debatable. I can't believe that in a society we consider civilized, I have to actually present a structured argument against cutting off pieces of babies when they're born.

Comments

[gerald_duck]

Quite apart from the glans being unprotected from stimulation if uncircumcised, I know that masturbation is a more straightforward exercise without the cut: the foreskin moves with the skin over the shaft and helps stimulate the glans. The same is true in penetrative sex, although less so because the glans is likely ensheathed to some extent anyway in that case.

Either that or I happen to have discussed this with cut people (and one with foreskin naturally absent) who have difficulty masturbating for other reasons.

Um… I don't think that was TMI in this context? /-8


Yes, parents have to make decisions on behalf of their children; that's unavoidable, or at least vastly preferable to the state making the decisions in any normal circumstance. However, I don't see why that justifies unnecessarily committing one's child to things they might later thoroughly dislike, which are extremely hard to undo. My view is that, apart from obviously bad options like becoming a serial killer, it's best not to close doors for one's children. Let them leave home thinking they've been allowed to develop into their own person, not who their parents wanted them to be.


I wasn't being cautious about cultural and religious implications so much as generic. I know there are Brits, Canadians and Americans reading this, atheists, agnostics and Jews; I expect there to be people from other cultures and religions as well. There are a lot more people in the world circumcised because of Islamic traditions than because of Jewish.

Yes, I can see why it would make you happy if your children retained a link to their heritage. But isn't it meaningless if they have that link imposed on them involuntarily?